It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
So wanting Diana Ross or even any black actress for the part of Solitaire seems like another clever way of getting away from the original Fleming racial politics. It certainly would have been hugely controversial in certain parts of the US, which is specifically why Broccoli and Saltzman opted not to go that route because they didn't want to lose potential ticket sales at theaters that would refuse to play it due to a interracial pairing between Bond and Solitaire. Sure, he does sleep with Rosie Carver, but she isn't the main girl and it's kinda thrown under the bus by revealing her to be a traitor that gets killed.
I think it's too bad they didn't go that route.
LALD is an annoying film for me because it's so, so, so close to being a classic top ten Bond film, but there's two big issues I can't get over. The first is the overlong boat chase. The second is the uncomfortable, colonial imperialist undertones it has on San Monique. The white English agent is killed at the start by the scary dark angry natives, and the pretty white English rose is about to meet the same fate until Bond, who in many ways is the ultimate symbol of old school British conservatism, comes in to save her from the nasty black people. I don't like it. Making Solitaire black would go a long way towards amending that.
I'm also not a huge fan of the drive through Harlem scene where it seems like every black guy in the neighbourhood is in Mr Big's pocket (if he was ruling through fear that'd be one thing but they all seem happily on board, unless I'm misremembering), but that's not really a big deal. There is that black CIA agent to give some positive representation on the African American side of things. But the stuff in San Monique really puts me off.
I'd also cut the plane chase because as fun as "same time tomorrow Mrs Bell" is, it is completely pointless (Solitaire didn't need to leave San Monique only to be immediately captured, she shouldn't have made it off the island with Bond) and the film could do with a slightly brisker pace at that point.
Just as I have no problem with a black Bond (my only issue with Idris was that he’s too old) I have zero problem with black Bond girls and am rather surprised we haven’t had any for quite a long time, unless you count Naomi’s Moneypenny, arguably the best-looking Moneypenny ever. Just didn’t want Diana Ross in LALD over Jane Seymour. She didn’t appeal to me, not like Seymour did. Now, if they got Pam Grier? Well....
I have always had a huge crush on Jane Seymour so I would be disappointed to lose out on her turn as the female lead in a Bond movie. However it is interesting how changing the actress to an African American would change some of the tone of the relationship.
One thing that was mentioned on the podcast was the fact that Jane's portrayal of the character was as a naïve almost child like woman. She gets duped by Bond with the cards fairly easily. She doesn't always seem to understand the dark and danger that she is a part of. Surely she would have seen the ruthless Kananga in action?
Do you concur that an African American actress would change the tone of the character. Obviously she'd still be virginal but maybe not as naïve as Jane portrayed her or how the character was written?
How would have the Bond series evolved had Casino Royale been the first film?
To this day, the series still owes so much to Dr. No. Not just the film, but the novel as well. It really laid the template on what would become known as the Bond formula, with Goldfinger taking that further. You replace that with an adaptation of CR in 1962, how would they have adapted the novel and what would be the repercussions for the series?
Let's just take the introduction of the Bond character. In the film Dr. No, a whole scene was made up for the film introducing him playing baccarat. None of this was in the novel, but it was needed for the film to strike an impression about the Bond character (as opposed to the novel reintroducing him after recovering at the hospital). It was also the film's way of paying tribute to the novel EON didn't own, so it was a more than perfect way to introduce him to audiences. That said, how would an adaptation of Casino Royale have handled the introduction of Bond? In the novel the film begins with an in medias res with Bond observing Le Chiffre sometime before the big game would begin, and then we go backwards in time to the briefing with M and resume from there. Would that have worked on film? Or perhaps they still create the scene with Sylvia Trench and when he gets called into work it's for the casino job.
Another big thing is the Boothroyd scene. Like the Dr. No novel, the film introduces this character to give Bond his new weapon and they would repeat this scene for From Russia with Love, which would evolve into the famous Q scenes. Casino Royale does not have anything like that, so there never would have been a Boothroyd, thus no Q. Had it been the first film, there might have never been a strong emphasis on gadgets, radically taking a big part of what has made Bond appealing.
I think SPECTRE still would have been inserted as Le Chiffre's banker, as we saw what they did with From Russia with Love. Blofeld might have been held back for what the next film would have been, like how he was held back with Dr. No.
Can anyone see any more repercussions for making CR first instead of DN?
I am interested in the character of Q and the lack of the screen time in CR compared to DN and the whole discussion about the Berreta. I wonder if that would stick? I love that scene between Bond and M it really sets up the future dynamic between the characters. It also establishes that M won't be a boss that Bond can pull one over on.
Finally I would have to ask, would EON in 1962 show the torture scene? Would they allow their hero to be beaten in such a brutal way?
I would have to answer "no" to that question. In a 1962 version of Casino Royale Eon would've had to have toned it down very drastically for it to get past the censors and that would've meant a completely different torture scene, if it was even to be torture at all. I imagine if it was filmed as written in the novel itself it would have been considered too strong meat for the censors and even perhaps for the audiences too. The truth of the matter is that both the novels of Casino Royale and Live and Let Die showcased a more brutal and noirish version of the James Bond character which wasn't continued as much into some of the Bond novels that followed. Both novels also featured a more personal involvement for Bond (namely the characters Vesper Lynd and Felix Leiter). The 1973 film version of Live and Let Die also toned this down of course, leaving the bulk of the story still to be adapted in later films. Arguably this early darker version of Bond wouldn't be seen until the release of Timothy Dalton's second Bond film Licence to Kill in 1989, although the first few Connery Bond films also showed parts of this type of Bond.
Proof of this hypothesis can be found by merely looking at the production of the actual first Bond film, Dr. No, first released fifty seven years ago today on 5 October 1962. As you will recall, Dr. No had to be changed in places to get past the censors of the day. These changes included cutting down the number of shots Bond fired into Professor Dent's back and removing the planned crab scene involving a pegged down Honey Ryder and replacing it with water instead. They also changed Bond's tunnel escape from his cell which in the film is just a tunnel with water but in the novel was an elaborate torture scene and human endurance test for Bond, devised by Dr. No and finishing with the infamous giant squid fight. In the novel Honey Rider (notice the change in the spelling of the surname too!) walked about naked save for her belt and knife. This was obviously never in the script but it raises the same point as the Casino Royale torture scene in the novel where Bond was also naked. As a result of this and his carpet beater torture commentators said the book was virtually unfilmable. It was like the Garden of Death plot and scenes in the You Only Live Twice novel, though obviously for different reasons.
Even when they did film the torture scene in the 2006 Casino Royale reboot film they toned it down by using a knotted rope so it wasn't at as close quarters as the Le Chiffre carpet beater testicle torture had been in the novel. They also (unadvisedly in my view) used humour from Craig Bond to offset the brutality of the torture scene. This suggests to me that the torture scene would have been problematic enough to film in any era of the Bond films, including the present one, and therefore most especially difficult in 1962. This is because it had to be done within the confines of a Bond film as opposed to, say, a Quentin Tarantino film and the expectations from critics and the audience that come along with all that cultural baggage.
Ken Dodd could have played Le Chiffre in that version, complete with his 'Tickling Stick'. Come to think of it, that wouldn't have been so out of place in the 1967 spoof film version of Casino Royale! ;)
Reminds me of that Two Ronnies 'Deaf Aid' sketch...
To me the rope intensified the torture compared to a carpetbeater. There's no real comparison for a carpetbeater on villain's knee versus the monkeyfist knot on the end of a mooring rope--there's a metal ball inside that thing, so a shipmate can swing it and let fly to pierside then use it to draw the larger mooring ropes in. It's really a horrifying use of that, the velocity it could generate to inflict damage. And visually on screen pretty thrilling, I don't know that could be improved.
From book to 2006 film, the biggest change to the scene is that Bond (different than struggling to outlast it and maintaining a sliver of hope he could saved) goes beyond being a victim/recipient of the torture, confronts and turns the tables on the villain, and wins. Le Chiffre is not getting the password or the money.
And would we get Ursula Andress as Vesper Lynd? She did play her in the 1967 spoof.
A think low key CR in 1962 with Connery might have been fantastic. Certainly a step above the CLIMAX version (which I do rank quite highly). Also, perhaps Peter Lorre could have reprised his role as Le Chiffre? He was still with us in '62 appearing in Roger Corman films.
The torture scene would obviously have been tweaked a bit, and perhaps the climax more faithful to the novel than the '06 version? This could have played out like a film noir, although in beautiful Technicolor.
Not true. Wilson came up with the idea of rebooting the series as far back as 1985, way before they acquired the rights to the novel. Cubby wasn’t confident that doing a Bond Begins story would resonate with audiences, so it was scrapped in favor of Bond still in his prime in The Living Daylights. When the time came to make Casino Royale, Wilson revived his Bond Begins pitch to be added to the film.
That wasn't removed due to censorship concerns. In fact they actually tried filming it. However, because the crabs were shipped in packages filled with ice they moved very slow or remained still, which didn't make them look very menacing. It was decided they would scrap the scene altogether and reshoot on set with a surge of water coming in to make it appear that Dr. No was going to drown her by flooding the room. This was all done on the fly in a very hastily manner.
You're quite right of course and I was thinking that as I typed it. I actually meant to reference it on a subsequent post edit. I remember either Ian Fleming himself or his wife Ann being quite disappointed that the crab scene didn't make it into the final cut of the film at the premiere of Dr. No. I believe it's mentioned in one or other of their Collected Letters. I also recall reading that some of the crabs actually died in transit, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
In any event, in the original 1958 novel Honey Rider actually survived the crabs going over her so if they were to be faithful to the book it may have been something of an anticlimax. They didn't do what Dr. No thought they would and start nipping bits out of the pegged down and helpless Honey.
P.S. Those are excellent pictures of that unused scene, @MakeshiftPython. Thanks for sharing those!
But back to Casino Royale. I was mostly looking into the repercussions of that being the first, but others make a good point on how much they would have altered the adaptation of it. I assume a toned down torture sequence would have remained, probably just a lot of flogging as we saw in Dr. No where they guard beat up Bond after dinner and for the rest of the film he remains bloodied and bruised. That's probably as far as they would have gotten with Le Chiffre torturing.
Would they have actually stuck to Vesper's suicide in 1962, or try to concoct a more up beat ending, using the other Bond novel endings as inspiration? EON always seems to try to make sure audiences walk out of the film on a high note. I doubt they would have ended it with "the bitch is dead". On Her Majesty's Secret Service may have ended with the death of Tracy, but it ends with a rather tacky triumphant Bond theme reprise. The 2006 film doesn't stop with "the bitch is dead", but I do think Bond finding Mr. White and introducing himself was actually a pretty good adaptation of what Fleming wrote in the last pages of the novel where Bond vows to "attack the arm that held the whip and the gun". We see him live up to that vow with his triumphant capture of White (only for the next film to immediately undo that, ho ho). Quantum of Solace ends on a more somber note with Bond "letting go" of Vesper via dropping the necklace onto the snowy street like a bad habit, only for the sudden appearance of the gun barrel and triumphant Bond theme to blare in, as if trying to make sure audiences would leave on a high note. The World Is Not Enough having Bond kill Elektra (who was supposed to be the leading Bond girl and villain) would have ended with him alone, but instead EON had the writers concoct Christmas Jones in order for Bond to end on a traditional manner, even though the film was supposed to be a parallel with OHMSS in the first place but whatever.
This all suggests to me that Vesper would have lived in the 1962 film. Perhaps after Le Chiffre's demise the filmmakers would have done away with the whole drama of Bond falling in love with her and losing her. Perhaps Terence Young would just end it on a boat ride with the two in France. By the time we get to the next film, From Russia with Love, Bond and Vesper are no longer a thing. In the original novel, it's noted that Bond and Tiffany Case had broken off, and she ended up tying the knot with a marine. Perhaps they'd mention that happened with Vesper, freeing Bond to go for the honey trap that is Tanya.
Yes, I read about that. It would have taken place in 1972, and led up to DN. A tweaked and updated timeline. You are probably right that the reboot would have happened at some time eventually, but at some other point is what I am saying.
Thanks for that suggestion @MakeshiftPython I appreciate some others piping in with their what if's.
I suppose we have put this next what if off for long enough. So lets have at it! As we all know Timothy Dalton appeared in 2 James Bond movies and was getting set for a third adventure. Then the legal wrangling's began and that film was shelved. Time passed and when they were finally ready to start production Broccoli went to Dalton and asked if he was ready to assume the role again. Dalton said sure but only 1 more. Broccoli said that wasn't in the cards that Dalton couldn't come back and do just one he'd have to do a couple at least. Tim gracefully passed and Pierce took over in GE.
For this what if lets suppose there were no legal wrangling's to get in the way and that Bond 17 went ahead with Tim in the role. There are scripts and screen treatments out there dealing with the plot of the movie. I am unaware of any other parts were cast. But lets have some fun, what if Timothy Dalton had returned for Bond 17 in 1991? Would this have paved the way for Dalton to continue the role for more films? What impact would this later have on the casting of Craig and the direction of the series later? Many have tied Dalton and Craig's portrayal together.
What say you Mi6? What if Timothy Dalton had returned as James Bond in Bond 17 in 1991?
I think many misunderstand why Dalton wasn't quite embraced the way Craig was. It is true that Craig took Bond back to a more brooding Bond that Dalton attempted, but the biggest difference is that Craig still brought a lot of the humor and swagger associated with the cinematic Bond, when Dalton intentionally left those behind for a more accurate portrayal of Fleming's Bond straight out of the pages.
So that makes me wonder about Dalton continuing onto a third film, would he have been open to re-configuring his approach to the role for Bond 17? It was apparently going to be a much more outlandish installment, probably a reaction to how LTK had been received. Would Dalton's portrayal have reflected the change in tone?
I always look at his performance in the film THE ROCKTEER where he plays a film star in Hollywood and he's cranking up the charm and swagger in a way that he never quite did for Bond. Maybe he wouldn't have gone that far, but closer to that than his vengeful rage in LTK might have been more welcoming.
It is interesting that he and Moore had faced the same situation with their second films. Both were considered serious under-performers for the film series. Bond would be rejuvenated with TSWLM and seal Moore's place in the Bond legacy. Maybe it could have worked for Dalton, it's hard to say.
Yes, please!
I remember filming was scheduled to begin in November of '90, for a summer '91 release according to the then JAMES BOND BRITISH FAN CLUB news letter. Then it was pushed back to January. After that, there was no point in looking towards '91.
The fan club would keep fans updated every few months or so regarding title and casting rumors. TPOAL was never officially announced as the title, just rumored. PORTRAIT OF A LADY was another rumored title.
What bothered me was after the legal problems were resolved and B17 green-lit, why not just continue forward with the film that was already planned? Instead Michael France was hired to come up with something new, and basically start from scratch adding another 3 years to the already unheard of hiatus.
That said had there been no obstacles and the '91 release date had been met I can imagine the film would have benefited from a better summer for Bond than '89 was. THE ROCKETEER would have had someone else in the Dalton role and probably still been a less than stellar box office hit. I loved that film, though. Bond's only real competition would have been T2, and I imagine Broccoli would have avoided a release in direct competition. Maybe a few weeks or month later?
I always felt the 3rd Dalton film would have established him firmly in the role and he would have continued un-interrupted through the '90's. The Ruggiero treatment was certainly more fantastical, but not too over the top, IMO.
In addition it was planned to find another director to freshen things up a bit. Perhaps that person would have brought out Tim's natural humor rather than Roger style one-liners?
That's kind of ironic as James Bond is a sex robot, when you think about it.