The What if Gary Oldman had portrayed Blofeld in SP and NTTD? credit to @maxcasino

echo

Dwayne wrote: »

OHMSS is a great Bond movie, and while I think that Lazenby acquitted himself quite well in the role, his departure was probably for the best.

Greatly aided by the original Fleming source material, Peter Hunt’s direction (of the movie, not him necessarily from what I’ve read), a great supporting cast (Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas, Gabriele Ferzetti, etc.), his short comings as an actor don’t really hurt the movie. In fact, I think his inexperience at being Bond, actually helped its believability, if anything. That said, how would he have done with a lesser script, or a lesser supporting cast? My gut, tells me – not as well.

In Roger Moore EON found a Bond with both significant history in the business, and who was also willing and able to be the public “face” of the enterprise that is 007. And he was politically savvy enough to make it work. Given Lazenby’s independent streak (and some of say lack of political tack), how would he have done in that role? And in many ways, that role is just as important as the acting one.

In an ideal world, I would have liked to see Lazenby (and Hunt) return for DAF to complete that cycle of films, before handing it off to another actor.

Well thought-out. If Connery, or even Moore, had been in OHMSS, they wouldn't have needed to cast Rigg as she was brought in as the pro to counterbalance (help?) Lazenby. (Rigg would have been the true loss, as she carried the film almost singlehandedly, with a nice assist from Savalas and the perfectly-cast Steppat).

A non-Lazenby OHMSS means a different supporting cast and possibly director. Would Connery have supported Hunt? (Something tells me that Lazenby as an ex-model would have accepted a gay director better than Connery.) Without the supporting cast and Hunt, OHMSS would be a lesser movie.

ToTheRight

With George a novice, Diana Rigg was definitely cast to help balance the film with a solid leading lady. No Lazenby, probably no Rigg.

Wasn't Brigitte Bardot also considered for Tracy?

thedove

ToTheRight wrote: »

With George a novice, Diana Rigg was definitely cast to help balance the film with a solid leading lady. No Lazenby, probably no Rigg.

Wasn't Brigitte Bardot also considered for Tracy?

Yes she was! She ended up co-starring with Connery in Shalako. So if you want to see the chemistry you could give this film a watch. Though I haven't seen it. LOL!

It is interesting to think of the ramifications of this decision or that. In this case if Lazenby signed on for more films it mostly likely eliminates Moore from playing Bond. Then the question becomes would audiences accept a Lazenby Bond and for how long? Or as @Dwayne stated maybe Lazenby hangs around for 2 films and then we get Moore.

Revelator

Keep in mind though that Honor Blackman was cast in GF opposite Connery and she was already a well-established actress. So it's not a sure thing that Rigg would be out if Connery stayed in. OHMSS was seen as a slightly risky story back then, so casting a name actress opposite Connery might have helped sell audiences on the story.

Jordo007

I think the novels would have been more faithfully adapted, the tone would have been darker and more in keeping with the novels, but we would have had a wooden actor who can't really act.
It's a two edged sword for me personally, OHMSS is a fantastic film and thankfully Diana Rigg is Tracy, because if she hadn't have been it would have shown how poor Lazenby really is in the acting department. When he's opposite Diana in a scene she elevates it and her charismatic screen presence hides Lazenby's lack of presence. My point is it they got away with it in OHMSS, because of the fantastic casting around Lazenby, I doubt they would strike that lucky in the following movies, granted Lazenby I do believe would have gotten better in the role but still.
The other side of the coin for me is what we got wasn't Bond for me. Firstly I think Sir Roger Moore was a lovely man, a great actor with a charismatic charm and commanding voice, so it's not a dig at him but the tone of the movies. They just weren't Bond for me, it's jarring when you watch them to have so many gags and winks to the audience, when we're meant to be watching a spy thriller or at least an action film. Like the barrel roll in Golden Gun, probably one of the greatest practical stunts ever shot on film, weakened by a terrible gag in the slide whistle and the crapped on completely by the ridiculous JW Pepper.

thedove

Another lovely discussion about a what if that many talk about. I think we have tackled this one from all sides. Again I must say I come away with a new appreciation for the intelligence within the posts.

For our next what if lets look at the partnership that was no more in 1974. (hey I am a poet and don't know it!) TMWTGG had been released and did poorly (for a Bond film) at the Box Office. Harry was up to his eyeballs in debt and needed a way to get out. The relationship with Albert had deteriorated to the point where I believe they no longer were on set together for TMWTGG. Albert bought out Harry and went on to produce the Bond movies himself. Harry moved away from the spotlight. But Harry was responsible for many of the cornerstones of the Bond series and he contributed greatly to the success on film of our secret agent.

Not sure if this what if will spring any deep discussion but lets talk about this. What if Harry wasn't in money problems and continued to produce the Bond films past TMWTGG. What effect would it have on the series? What did the series lose when Harry left?

What say you Mi6? What if Harry Saltzman hadn't left the Bond series in 1974?

RichardTheBruce

There was the concept of each producer taking turns for the lead on the next mission. Could have lent to some diverse directions. But eventually things would have come to a head and one would have to bow out for good, meaning Saltzman. There's no telling if Broccoli could salvage things, but he did that many times over didn't he.

MakeshiftPython

If Harry at least didn’t sell his half of the rights to UA, then things would have been DRASTICALLY different production wise. EON would not be chained MGM today, and probably would have started a partnership with another studio down the line. That would certainly mean EON wouldn’t have had to delay both Bond 17, and just imagine how THAT changes history. Dalton might have continued onto a third film, how would that have turned out? Would it have been a big hit for him and he continue making more? Does that mean no Brosnan?

It’s a huge domino effect.

bondsum

Personally, I feel the series would have benefited greatly had Saltzman continued his partnership with Broccoli and not got involved with the Technicolor Motion Picture debacle. If we put aside the fact that Saltzman overextended himself, what he brought to the franchise was his fresh ideas and creative drive. It's easy to forget that Saltzman alone was the man that revived the British film industry fortunes by giving Tony Richardson and John Osborne their big breaks and turning it around with the social realism dramas such as 1959's Look Back in Anger and 1960's Saturday Night and Sunday Morning plus The Entertainer (1960), often referred to as kitchen-sink dramas. Just stop and think for a moment about all the great actors that Saltzman's movies gave their big-screen debuts to and you realise how important he was: Albert Finney, Alan Bates, Joan Plowright, Nigel Davenport, etc. His anti-Bond film The Ipcress File was another cinematic milestone that tends to be overlooked when assessing Saltzman's work independently of Cubby.

But let's just suppose that Harry reigned it in after his science fiction musical disaster Toomorrow starring Olivia Newton-John in her own big-screen debut and instead concentrated on Bond soley from 1970 onwards. We know that Saltzman was involved in the pre-production of TSWLM, as was the original director Guy Hamilton. Also, if we take into consideration the alternating producer caps, TSWLM would've been more of a Saltzman production than a Cubby one, so I'm more inclined to believe that the movie would've maintained a more serious tone throughout, as had OHMSS and LALD sandwiched in-between the Cubby Bonds. Another thing worth considering is whether Cubby's son-in-law Michael G. Wilson would've been so heavily involved as much as was in future productions with Harry still at the helm.

Again, I believe had TSWLM been a more serious take, then it was less likely that the following Bond movie Moonraker would've been so outrageous as it was because it didn't have that progressive next step to make. I also believe that Saltzman (not being a great fan of Roger Moore as 007) would've balked at his salary demands and looked to replace him come his FYEO turn at the wheel. So yeah, creative decisions would've been entirely different to the ones we got. Being a huge fan of the Danjaq S.A Bond movies and less so of the post Saltzman ones, I feel the combination of Harry and Cubby would've eventually sorted itself out and the movies would've been stronger throughout the Eighties than they actually were. That's not to take away anything that Cubby did, I just believe that Cubby needed a strong partner that challenged some of his more dubious decisions going forwards and Harry would've provided that.

thedove

Great points raised by both of you. I find the Broccoli family tends to down play the role of Harry in the series. Granted more films now were made without his input then with it, however I think @bondsum has hit on something. The counter balance that a two person team can provide each other.

Great point about Spy being more serious then it came to be. Then does MR get even more silly if Spy is more serious? doubtful. Funny that Saltzman and Broccoli first saw each other during the premiere of FYEO. Sounds like that's a film that Saltzman would be more aligned with.

This what if does dive into some the legal wrangles that came down in the future. Does Brosnan need to send a thank you card to the Saltzman family?

MakeshiftPython

Well another thing to consider is how long Saltzman would have stayed on as producer. He passed away in 1994, but was supposedly pretty active until he succumbed to his heart attack, so he would have at least been around for Dalton’s casting (who I assume he would have approved of, given Dalton was offered as far back as 1968) and for pre-production or a potential Bond film in 1994 (which could have been a Bond 18 or 19 by then if no hiatus). Cubby was already starting to get ill around LTK’s production and by GE he was already taking a backseat. Would Saltzman have had a bigger handle on Bond in the early 90s? Would Mike and Barbara have still been integrated as producers in the 80s and assume larger roles by the 90s?

And this is all on the idea if Harry didn’t get himself into heavy debt and had a falling out with Cubby.

thedove

It's a pretty cool what if to consider and has ramifications for longer then just the 70's. I wasn't expecting a lot of people weighing in on this one but those that have I applaud you for again adding some knowledge to me.

bondsum

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

Well another thing to consider is how long Saltzman would have stayed on as producer. He passed away in 1994, but was supposedly pretty active until he succumbed to his heart attack, so he would have at least been around for Dalton’s casting (who I assume he would have approved of, given Dalton was offered as far back as 1968) and for pre-production or a potential Bond film in 1994 (which could have been a Bond 18 or 19 by then if no hiatus). Cubby was already starting to get ill around LTK’s production and by GE he was already taking a backseat. Would Saltzman have had a bigger handle on Bond in the early 90s? Would Mike and Barbara have still been integrated as producers in the 80s and assume larger roles by the 90s?

And this is all on the idea if Harry didn’t get himself into heavy debt and had a falling out with Cubby.

Yes, it's true that Harry wouldn't have been involved beyond 1994 due to his passing away in the same way as Cubby wasn't involved beyond GE. What we don't know is whether Saltzman's daughter or son would've been more heavily involved in the same way as Barbara or Micky G were. Of course this is very much a "what if" scenario, otherwise there'd be no point to this thread or discussion.

However, Dalton wasn't offered the role of Bond back in 1968. But he was offered a screen-test which his agent declined at Dalton's own request. That was just Cubby doing a bit of PR spin and being economical with the truth to give the impression that Dalton was always in contention for the role when Brosnan couldn't break-free from his Remington Steele contract. Though I agree that Dalton might have been more to Harry's liking along with Lewis Collins, it's difficult to actually know who he might have gone with post-Moore. Had Saltzman stayed on and retained his considerable showbiz contacts, then I'm sure he would've found a way to release Brosnan from his NBC network contract if he'd really wanted him. It's true that Dalton was in consideration for the role around FYEO when Moore was stalling on his own negotiations, but Dalton had already let it be known that he wasn't happy with the way the series had gone and wasn't interested, so was quickly taken out of the mix for the second time.

I agree with @thedove that the Broccoli family have down-played Saltzman's role in the same way they continually down-played the success of OHMSS. I guess nobody likes a black sheep of the family. It's very much a case of "to the victor go the spoils" and with it the chance to rewrite history the way they want it to be seen. I'm sure the same thing would've happened had the shoe been on the other foot.

bondsum

DELETE

thedove

As I had suspected not a deep or contentious "what if" with Harry staying on in the franchise. I have come away with an appreciation of his efforts not just with Bond but with Britain films as a whole.

For this next what if I thought I would take on a more literary "what if". Though it might have ramifications for the film series. We all know that Ian Fleming passed away in 1964 of a heart attack. His publisher was able to get TMWTGG and OP out posthumously and years later Anthony Horowitz was able to use some un-published work in his novels.

For this "what if". Lets say that Fleming didn't pass away in 1964 but managed to live more years. Where do you think he would have taken Bond? On numerous occasions I heard Fleming was toying with killing of Bond. Do you think if he had continued to write Bond novels that he would have killed off his character? Would the cinematic Bond continued to influence his literary character?

What say you Mi6? What if Ian Fleming didn't pass away in 1964 but had managed to live a number of more years. What would the further adventures of James Bond look like? Would this impact the film series...other then providing EON with more material and titles to use for future adventures.

Roadphill

thedove wrote: »

As I had suspected not a deep or contentious "what if" with Harry staying on in the franchise. I have come away with an appreciation of his efforts not just with Bond but with Britain films as a whole.

For this next what if I thought I would take on a more literary "what if". Though it might have ramifications for the film series. We all know that Ian Fleming passed away in 1964 of a heart attack. His publisher was able to get TMWTGG and OP out posthumously and years later Anthony Horowitz was able to use some un-published work in his novels.

For this "what if". Lets say that Fleming didn't pass away in 1964 but managed to live more years. Where do you think he would have taken Bond? On numerous occasions I heard Fleming was toying with killing of Bond. Do you think if he had continued to write Bond novels that he would have killed off his character? Would the cinematic Bond continued to influence his literary character?

What say you Mi6? What if Ian Fleming didn't pass away in 1964 but had managed to live a number of more years. What would the further adventures of James Bond look like? Would this impact the film series...other then providing EON with more material and titles to use for future adventures.

I don't think it would have had a huge impact on the series, initially at least. Ian didn't have a huge influence (outside of the stories, of course!) On the creative direction of the film's. He famously wasn't a fan of Connery, initially.
If we had two or three more Bond novels from him, that would have undoubtedly influenced the film's later down the line. Even if, as is the case with some of the movies, the title was all that was used. We all know that the novels are always mined for scenes and plot beats. Even DAD used Fleming. Graves was essentially Drax from Moonraker.

bondsum

Yes, aside from Saltzman or Connery staying on, the continued good health of Fleming is a very interesting "what if" scenario. Clearly, TMWTGG would've been completed and gone through two or three more drafts before he submitted it to the publishers, resulting in a much better polished end product. As Fleming never truly got to see Bondmania take-off we have no idea how he would've reacted. We know that Fleming softened his stance on Connery due to the early success of the first two movies and the rise in his own book sales, so I'm sure he would have embraced Connery more openly after GF. Let's just try to imagine if Fleming had lived through the 60's and what his output would've been like. My guess is that he would've gone from strength-to-strength with even better story structures for his books. He would've also given us more villains and better titles to enjoy. What we don't know is how the continued relationship with Cubby and Harry would've progressed. For instance, Fleming might've turned his hand to writing short screen treatments as they were less time-consuming for him, allowing Richard Maibaum, or whoever, to develop them further. It's quite possible that the producers would've given him the extra support and incentives to keep the creative output ongoing for future productions, especially after the colossal success of GF and TB at the global Box Office.

Growing up and having OHMSS as my first Bond cinematic experience, I can distinctly recall counting off the remaining Fleming titles to be adapted and thinking we still had 5 more books with the odd short story that could still be used before the producers hit a creative cul-de-sac and would need to come up with their own ideas. It was so far-off back in 1970 that I wasn't too bothered, if I'm being honest. What concerned me then was would Lazenby come back for DAF and who would replace him if he didn't return.

I'm sure there isn't a genuine Bond fan alive that wouldn't have given his right arm to have seen five or more proper Fleming books published before his death. It certainly would've helped the series though out the Eighties and early Nineties, that's for sure, and would've given perhaps Brosnan a proper Bond story that he never got.

suavejmf

Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »

Brosnan in TLD we would have got a skinnier Bond.

Joking aside Pierce would have done a fine Job, arguably Glen may have made Pierce into a better Bond than in the films we actually saw PB in.

Agreed. Albeit I'm glad we had Dalton. Much more creatively interesting.

Thunderfinger

I do wonder if EON would have respected the source material more if Fleming lived on. It was shortly after his death that they started to not give a toss. The first four are all pretty straight adaptations, and that only ever happened again for OHMSS, which I guess we can mostly thank Peter Hunt and Richard Maibaum for.

thedove

Interesting thought @Thunderfinger I hadn't considered that before. But yes now that you say it I think having the creator of the character alive would have changed some of the tones of the movie.

Imagine Fleming lending his talents to a screen treatment? Wow that would be very interesting to see. You look at J.K. Rowling and how she branched out and has started to delve into cinema and broadway.

Do any of us think he would have ever killed off Bond? He toyed with it at the end of FRWL and one wonders if he would ever do the unthinkable.

Walecs

thedove wrote: »

Interesting thought @Thunderfinger I hadn't considered that before. But yes now that you say it I think having the creator of the character alive would have changed some of the tones of the movie.

Imagine Fleming lending his talents to a screen treatment? Wow that would be very interesting to see. You look at J.K. Rowling and how she branched out and has started to delve into cinema and broadway.

Do any of us think he would have ever killed off Bond? He toyed with it at the end of FRWL and one wonders if he would ever do the unthinkable.

That would be interesting to see. IMO Rowling is not suited for film scripts, she tried to cram too much stuff in the Fantastic Beasts movies, probably because she's used to writing very long books. Fleming's novels, on the other hand, were very short (so much so that movies like CR actually expand on the novel) so he may have been a good screenwriter.

thedove

I agree with your assessment of Rowling. She never met a sentence she didn't like, one can only imagine her poor editor! LOL!

Fleming's writing did translate for the screen. It would have been interesting if EON had asked him to assist with some screen treatments. I don't think he was as fanatical of Bond like Travers was of Mary Poppins. Does anyone know how much EON engaged him in the development of the 3 pictures that were made in his lifetime?

thedove

Thanks for the great discussion on what might have happened in Ian Fleming had lived past 1964. Very interesting thoughts and ideas shared.

I recently came across an article that I thought would be worthy of a "what if". Back in the mid-seventies it would appear that Steven Spielberg met with Roger Moore and asked about possibly directing a Bond picture. I further read that he even had a meeting with Broccoli. I was fascinated by this and thought it would be worthy of a discussion. Based on the timelines it would appear that this occurred in 1973-1975 timeframe. As Moore was quoted saying that he knew Steven from his work on the film Duel.

What say you Mi6? What if Steven Spielberg had directed a Bond picture in the 70's? Which of the 70's films do you think his touch would have been greatest on? Would you expect Spielberg to honour the traditions of Bond or do you think we would get a visionary work?

What if Steven Spielberg had directed a Bond picture in the 1970's?

Walecs

Then my #1 favourite movie would have most likely not been made :( But I'm very curious as to what a Spielberg Bond movie would be like, he especially feels really suited to the adventure style of Bond movies. Wasn't he in talks to direct TSWLM? I'm inclined to think that, had Christopher Wood's script been used, the movie would have been pretty much similar to what we got. Same for Moonraker; they both feel like the kind of movies that 70s Spielberg would make.

thedove wrote: »

I agree with your assessment of Rowling. She never met a sentence she didn't like, one can only imagine her poor editor! LOL!

Fleming's writing did translate for the screen. It would have been interesting if EON had asked him to assist with some screen treatments. I don't think he was as fanatical of Bond like Travers was of Mary Poppins. Does anyone know how much EON engaged him in the development of the 3 pictures that were made in his lifetime?

Yeah, according to Andrew Lycett's Fleming biography Ian mostly cared about money and was eager to sell the rights to the best bidder, no matter what they did with them. I mean, didn't he say he hated Connery as Bond yet never opposed to his casting* and even wrote Bond's lineage as Scottish in OHMSS to reference the movie?

*nor did he say in his contract when he sold the rights that he wanted to have a say in the movie casting

MakeshiftPython

bondsum wrote: »

Yes, aside from Saltzman or Connery staying on, the continued good health of Fleming is a very interesting "what if" scenario. Clearly, TMWTGG would've been completed and gone through two or three more drafts before he submitted it to the publishers, resulting in a much better polished end product. As Fleming never truly got to see Bondmania take-off we have no idea how he would've reacted. We know that Fleming softened his stance on Connery due to the early success of the first two movies and the rise in his own book sales, so I'm sure he would have embraced Connery more openly after GF. Let's just try to imagine if Fleming had lived through the 60's and what his output would've been like. My guess is that he would've gone from strength-to-strength with even better story structures for his books. He would've also given us more villains and better titles to enjoy. What we don't know is how the continued relationship with Cubby and Harry would've progressed. For instance, Fleming might've turned his hand to writing short screen treatments as they were less time-consuming for him, allowing Richard Maibaum, or whoever, to develop them further. It's quite possible that the producers would've given him the extra support and incentives to keep the creative output ongoing for future productions, especially after the colossal success of GF and TB at the global Box Office.

Growing up and having OHMSS as my first Bond cinematic experience, I can distinctly recall counting off the remaining Fleming titles to be adapted and thinking we still had 5 more books with the odd short story that could still be used before the producers hit a creative cul-de-sac and would need to come up with their own ideas. It was so far-off back in 1970 that I wasn't too bothered, if I'm being honest. What concerned me then was would Lazenby come back for DAF and who would replace him if he didn't return.

I'm sure there isn't a genuine Bond fan alive that wouldn't have given his right arm to have seen five or more proper Fleming books published before his death. It certainly would've helped the series though out the Eighties and early Nineties, that's for sure, and would've given perhaps Brosnan a proper Bond story that he never got.

Assuming Fleming wrote more Bond novels, Brosnan might have ended up getting the short stories instead of Moore and Dalton. The only reason the 80s films had adaptations of those short stories titles was because EON finally had used up the novels. Assuming Brosnan's gig began with the first adaptation of the short stories, that would mean someone other than Richard Maibaum would have had to work those out, and the films might have been wildly different to what we got in the 80s. Would whoever writing then had come up with the same decision to combine the "For Your Eyes Only" and "Risico" shorts?

thedove wrote: »

Thanks for the great discussion on what might have happened in Ian Fleming had lived past 1964. Very interesting thoughts and ideas shared.

I recently came across an article that I thought would be worthy of a "what if". Back in the mid-seventies it would appear that Steven Spielberg met with Roger Moore and asked about possibly directing a Bond picture. I further read that he even had a meeting with Broccoli. I was fascinated by this and thought it would be worthy of a discussion. Based on the timelines it would appear that this occurred in 1973-1975 timeframe. As Moore was quoted saying that he knew Steven from his work on the film Duel.

What say you Mi6? What if Steven Spielberg had directed a Bond picture in the 70's? Which of the 70's films do you think his touch would have been greatest on? Would you expect Spielberg to honour the traditions of Bond or do you think we would get a visionary work?

What if Steven Spielberg had directed a Bond picture in the 1970's?

I'm not sure a 70s installment by Spielberg would have happened because Lewis Gilbert was already making hit films for EON. However, I do think getting Spielberg for FYEO would have been an assured follow up hit to those two Gilbert films, and frankly more suitable for him than the high camp 70s. I certainly would have liked him at the helm more than John Glen.

BT3366

I'm not sure I buy into the Spielberg meeting Moore story, especially based on Duel. I know Spielberg wanted to do a Bond, but it's highly unlikely an unknown young director whose biggest claim to fame was a successful TV would have any shot at doing Bond, especially before Jaws.

And at the time, weren't Eon insistent on its films being guided by a British director? I am more inclined to believe Cubby actually met with Spielberg, but I'm guessing this was post Jaws and probably CE3K. I'm sure there are a couple of posters such as Revelator or bondsum who would likely have a better idea about this.

thedove

The meeting I read about on line came from one of Roger Moore's book. Roger said he only knew Spielberg from the film Duel. Maybe Roger was confused with the timing of the meeting?

I personally would have liked to have seen Spielberg direct a Bond movie, though if he did Indiana Jones may not have seen the light of day. I do think he had the chops back then to handle it. I could picture some of the closeups of Moore and the villain. I think he might have increased the thrills and the tension. Maybe not has jokey a film as we got with Spy and certainly not with MR.

I am not sure if they were only looking at British directors. I think a stumbling block would have been Spielberg looking for a cut of the pie and I don't think
Cubby was willing to share.

Roadphill

I have heard the Spielberg rumours regarding Moonraker before. To be honest, I'm not sure the film would have been hugely different. Maybe a touch darker.
EON set the precident for the type of tone and story they require, and up until the 2000's the Director's where more there to realize Cubby's vision. Obviously they all managed to add a bit of their own stamp, especially in terms of cinematography.

I'm guessing, though, after the freedom afforded to Spielberg on Jaws, he may have found working for EON a little creatively stifling.

BondStu

I recall reading an interview with Spielberg a few years ago. He said he tried to throw his hat in the ring for Bond. No one really took him seriously cause he didn't have the reputation he does now.

When he was asked if he'd do a Bond now his answer was quite simple "They couldn't afford me".

thedove

Very true about affording Mr. Spielberg @BondStu it's an interesting what if for a director as famous and acclaimed as him directing our favourite spy.

I just finished listening to James Bond and friends on Spotify and they talked about the American portrayal in the movies. Locations were heavily talked about, and then an interesting side discussion came up. The character of Solitaire was discussed. I thought it was worthy of a discussion here too! So for this what if we are going to talk about the wonderful Solitaire.

In the first draft and maybe some of the other early drafts of the film Solitaire was to be African American. Tom Mankiewicz even went so far to say he was envisioning Diana Ross playing the part in the film. It was later decided that Solitaire being played by an African American was a bit too much of a hot potato. So the lovely Jane Seymour was cast as the lady with the ability to look into the future. It got me thinking what if Diana Ross, or another African American actress, was cast as Solitaire. What effect do you think this would have had on the character we saw on screen? For those of us old enough to recall 1973 society do you think the producers were correct to give up this idea and stick with her being played by a Caucasian actress? Would you have had Diana Ross sing the title song to the movie along with the starring role? Therefore wiping out Madonna's acheivement in DAD?

What say you Mi6? What if Diana Ross (or an African American Actress) had been cast as Solitaire in LALD?