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
One of the things that's great about TSWLM is that it's where the franchise as a whole finally stepped out of the shadow of the sixties. It's the film where Moore's Bond finally settled into place and they stopped, as Lewis Gilbert rightly pointed out, writing the role like Connery was still playing the part. True, the plot has more than a few echoes of YOLT, but there's a sense of scale and its own identity that gets firmly established that rivals or even excels what the earlier films did. TSWLM that proved Bond could make it without Connery, especially after Golden Gun's reception and everything going on behind the scenes made that look unlikely for a time.
Bringing back Tatiana (or Blofeld and SPECTRE for that matter) leaves the franchise still chasing after those days gone by. Arguably, that's the problem with DAF-Golden Gun, in that they were chasing past glories still instead of trying to forge ahead. It's one thing to briefly mention Tracy, for example, but it's another to say "Why create a new female lead when we can just use another one?" Maybe it would have worked and we could have had more internal continuity between films than we'd had since the very earliest days of the series (and wouldn't have again until Craig's era, but throwing in Tatiana strikes me as a move that makes the audience go "Wasn't this character better in that Connery film?"
At the end of FRWL, Bond and Tatiana would’ve gone back to the UK, even if she wasn’t an agent, the British would allow her to safely defect to the West.
How and why would she be working as a top Russian agent in TSWLM?
Of course a story could be made up. But would it be believable, and more importantly, would the audience be accept her with a different Bond?
Whilst it would be a nice idea if Connery was still Bond, I don’t think it would’ve worked well for Roger Moore, or the story as a whole.
I believe there was an idea to bring her back, in AVTAK.
But then we got Pola Ivanova instead.
Bach refused it.....
Likely out to assassinate 007 for moving on to other conquests. Maybe he could win her back over.
That's an interesting premise, imagine her being this Rogue 'former' Russian Intel a la what happened to Bond in LTK, but she accidentally encountered Bond along the way, it would've made an unusual partnering, then she would be involved in Bond's mission, because Bond's enemies were also targeting her too, now (because again, she got involved in Bond's mission), and they're now helping each other to finish Bond's mission, but in the middle of the mission, it would be revealed that Bond's mission was also the same rogue mission of Tatiana's, means, Bond's enemy was also the same as Tatiana's enemy, having their rivalry more stronger because they're competing for who should kill the villain; is it Tatiana or Bond?
Because she married Ringo Starr and saw his bank account.
No, because she said that Bond is a 'chauvinist pig'
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1631080/James-Bond-girl-Barbara-Bach-The-Spy-Who-Loved-Me-Roger-Moore/amp
And Bond had to save her again for being involved in villainous enviro-mischief.
And so she was run down in the first act by a speeding freight train.
It lead me to think, what if....what if Peter had kept the film the way he intended. OHMSS ends with a happy ending, the next film opens with the tragic end of Tracey. Would it change the way OHMSS is viewed, would the ending be a whimper and not a jaw dropping ending it was? I realize this change would have greater implications, as it would mean George was back for DAF, or if they had to re-shoot, Connery would be with Rigg in the Aston.
What say you Mi6, what if Peter Hunt's original ending had stayed with the death of Tracey being the start of DAF?
But, yes, I think OHMSS would be viewed differently if Tracy had survived to the credits. The downer ending maybe wasn't what its original '60s audience wanted, but it does contribute to the positive modern reassessment of the film. I do think OHMSS would've been reassessed anyway, but Tracy's death gives it so much more gravitas than if the last shot had been the wedding car driving off. It wouldn't be the same film without the ending we got. By the same token, nor would DAF!
It wouldn't have made much sense to keep it in store for the next film. There was naturally no Internet in those days, but the audiences would have known how the original novel was supposed to end and that Diana Rigg wouldn't play a big part in the sequel. Her death wouldn't have been such a shocking moment. Then, it would have been much of a departure to get Bond happy in the first minutes, then moping, then back to his efficient self during most of the sequel. Give the man some time to grieve offscreen… It made more sense for an OHMSS followup movie to return to Bond after a few months where he was a shadow of his former self, getting eventually the revenge he was seeking.
Then, the lyrics of "We Have All the Time in the World" don't take their full meaning unless there is the tragic ending. And the song was written and recorded before Lazenby had made a decision.
But more importantly, the final scene was Lazenby's best bit of acting in the film. He sells the hell out of Bond's pain, displaying some vulnerability that Connery may have never been able to match. I don't see how it could have made shot while Hunt simply needed a scene to take care of loose ends, given the intensity of the performance. This isn't some half-assed conclusion delivered by an actor who's eager to leave the franchise behind.
Sure, Hunt may have considered at some point in development keeping the scene for the sequel and may have talked about it with the producers, but it's obvious that it had been confirmed in its rightful place early during production.
yes , a coked out drummer beats 007 any day :P
Im glad OHMSS is th way it is.....wouldv cheapnd Tracys death in DAF , not th same impact imo
According to the inside documentary, it sounds like it was very much Hunt's intention to end with the wedding (skip to 35:40), he refers to it as "dramatically how it should have been."
However, I agree it works much better as is. It leaves far more impact immediately following the wedding, showing us just how short a time their shared happiness lasts.
I can understand why Hunt would say that because the films are in their own universe, especially in the spy-crazed mid- to late '60s. (YOLT to OHMSS is as abrupt a tonal shift as MR to FYEO, but maybe as abrupt as OHMSS to DAF.) And clearly CR in 2006 did not choose to go with a (completely) downer ending.
Ironically, because a future with Eon did not work out for either Hunt or Lazenby, we got the best possible film under these circumstances.
I only wish the producers had taken some patience and allowed the next film to be a continuation. Even with a different Bond, they could have acknowledged Tracey and the death of her character.
Having Moneypenny joke about wanting a ring with a diamond was in poor taste in terms of the grieving Bond. But since DAF doesn't acknowledge the death or anything about OHMSS I suppose it's not too bad.
Maybe we should create an "if only" thread! LOL
Yeah that's a terrible idea. That sort of thing just undermines the previous film, making the audience feel like they've been cheated. Usually when that happens it's because a cast member can't return or the new director can't come up with an idea of how to use the character in the new one- to actually plan to do that a couple of years beforehand is madness.
I actually think this was more accidental than anything else and blown out of proportion by SP critics. Yes, it was a bad idea. But it was not taken from AP, the "brothers turned enemies" was a cliché that predates AP. And in SP's case, it's toned down by the fact that the assumption is entirely from Blofeld's point of view. Bond even stops calling him Franz Oberhauser when his new identity is revealed.
Turnabout is fair play.
I think the "brother" thing in SP has been over stated. I question why they felt they needed this angle. The Blofeld, Bond dynamic should have been enough to make for an intense hatred without adding in this adopted brother angle.